Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73456 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5281 of 2024 Revisionist :- Ashutosh @ Ranu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Adil Jamal,Shabeh Jamal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present criminal revision has been filed with prayer to allow the revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 06.08.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Kannauj in Case No.538/12 of 2019 (Smt Rupali and another vs. Ashutosh @ Ranu) u/s 127 Cr.P.C. by which the application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance was allowed. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the opposite party no.2 is wife and opposite party no.3 is minor son of the revisionist. Further submitted that the wife is living apart from the revisionist without any reasonable excuse. A case u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the wife as Case No.423/12/13 which was decided on 09.10.2015 fixing the amount of maintenance Rs.3000/- to the wife and Rs.3000/- to the minor son total Rs.6000/- per month. Again the wife/opposite party no.2 filed an application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the amount of maintenance which was allowed by the learned court concerned by order dated 06.08.2024 enhancing the amount of maintenance Rs.3000/- to Rs.8000/- per month for the wife and from Rs.3000/- to Rs.4000/- per month for the minor son, total Rs.12,000/-. He also submits that a petition for divorce was filed by the husband which was decreed in favour of the revisionist on 05.03.2010. Further submitted that a Complaint Case No.294/17 u/s 498A, 323 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act was also filed by the wife which was decided on 20.09.2023 resulting into acquittal and also the case under Section 12 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act was also filed and decided in favour of the revisionist. All these facts were not taken into consideration by the learned trial court while enhancing the amount. He also submits that after divorce he entered into second marriage and there are two children from the second wife. There is liability of second wife, children and parents on the revisionist who is lekhpal and his monthly net salary is Rs.40,600/- per month out of which he is to maintain the aforesaid members of the family and himself. Learned trial court did not take into account all these facts but allowed the application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. by order dated 06.08.2024 which cannot be said to be lawful but being illegal it is liable to be set aide. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case the order passed by learned trial court on an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. is still existing. The revisionist has not challenged that order as a result it came to finality. Now the application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the wife for enhancing the amount of maintenance that was well considered by the learned trial court and the amount of maintenance was enhanced taking in view the liabilities of the husband and his income. If there is any change in the circumstances of the case or civil decree in favour of the husband, he may have an option to move application u/s 127(2) Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court. There is no any illegality in the order but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and the order passed by learned trial court dated 06.08.2024, it appears that the opposite party no.2 is wife and opposite party no.3 is minor son of the revisionist. Due to neglect of the revisionist the wife/opposite party no.2 with her son/opposite party no.3 is living apart from him. An application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by her which was allowed by order dated 09.10.2015 and amount of maintenance Rs.3000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs.3000/- per month in favour of minor son were fixed. Now the opposite party no.2 has moved an application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the amount. Admittedly, the revisionist receives salary Rs.40,600/- per month after deductions. In view of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129 and followed in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhary vs. Rita Dey Chowdhary Nee Nandy on 19 April, 2017 AIR 2017 Supreme Court 2383 the amount of maintenance may be to the extent of 25% of the net salary of the husband. In view of the above case laws maintenance Rs.8000/- per month in favour of wife cannot be said to be disproportionate or excessive likewise the amount of maintenance Rs.4000/- per month in favour of minor son can also not be said to be unjustified and excessive. In this regard, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court, therefore, it does not warrant any interference by this Court. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist about the alteration of circumstances of the case is concerned, he may have an option to move an application u/s 127(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent court. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Ashok Gupta Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad